DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Heitkaemper teaches a method and a plant for processing plastic waste – (corresponds to a method) to include:
Having plastic waste from landfills and/or other collections points be sorted into recyclable and non-recyclable fractions, see [0005]– (construed as providing recovered plastic waste from a waste repository).
Feeding unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming process in the various process steps, see [0015] – [0016]. It is noted the specification considers biomass as waste that is recovered from garbage, see page 6 lines 16-20. Therefore, Heitkaemper’s recovered unusable portion corresponds to biomass and the feeding thereof into the incineration plant, the resulting energy being used in other processes is sufficient to correspond to (combusting biomass waste by a combustion system to generate residual heat and heated exhaust; and using the residual heat and heated exhaust in manufacturing new plastic products from the recovered plastic waste).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 14, Heitkaemper teaches a method and a plant for processing plastic waste – (corresponds to a system) to include:
Having plastic waste from landfills and/or other collections points be sorted into recyclable (corresponds to plastic waste) and non-recyclable fractions (corresponds to biowaste), see [0005]– (construed as a waste repository comprising plastic waste and biomass waste and a sorting station configured for sorting recovered plastic waste and recovered biomass waste from other waste in the waste repository).
Feeding unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming process in the various process steps, see [0015] – [0016]. It is noted the specification considers biomass as waste that is recovered from garbage, see page 6 lines 16-20. Therefore, Heitkaemper’s recovered unusable portion corresponds to biomass and the feeding thereof into the incineration plant, the resulting energy being used in other processes is sufficient to correspond to (a combustion system configured to combust separated biomass waste to generate residual heat and heated exhaust; and a plastic product manufacturing system configured to use the residual heat and heated exhaust in manufacturing new plastic products from recovered plastic waste from the waste repository).
Regarding claim 15, Heitkaemper discloses the plastic waste is first sorted into recyclable and non-recyclable fractions, see [0005] – (construed as a pre-manufacturing processing system, the pre-manufacturing processing system configured to perform one or more of sorting the recovered plastic waste and removing items of plastic waste not to be used in the new plastic products); the waste of the recyclable fractions is shredded and subjected to a preliminary cleaning, see [0005] – (construed as decontaminating the recovered plastic waste; and/or cutting the recovered plastic waste); and the plastic material is then dried and can, for example, be used directly for its new purpose in this processed form, see [0005] – (construed as the pre-manufacturing processing system being further configured to output processed plastic waste to a plastic product manufacturing stage).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A).
Regarding claim 2, while Heitkaemper discloses having plastic waste from landfills and/or other collections points be sorted into recyclable and non-recyclable fractions, see [0005] – (construed as providing recovered plastic waste from a waste repository; and sorting waste recovered from the landfill into the recovered plastic waste); and feeding unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming process in the various process steps, see [0015] – [0016] – (construed as the biomass waste recovered from the landfill is provided to the combustion system); it does not explicitly disclose the sorting of a metal waste stream.
Dong discloses recycling, in particular to a plastic pipeline production process for recycling waste plastics. Where the waste stream is washed processed to remove metal so as to prevent them from damaging the crusher, see page 9 first paragraph.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heitkaemper’s method to include separating out metals as taught by Dong to provide the method with protection from metal waste that could damage processing equipment.
Regarding claim 3, modified Heitkaemper discloses the plastic waste is first sorted into recyclable and non-recyclable fractions, see Heitkaemper [0005] – (construed as providing recovered plastic waste to a pre-manufacturing processing stage, the pre-manufacturing processing stage comprising one or more of: sorting the recovered plastic waste and removing items of plastic waste not to be used in the new plastic products); the waste of the recyclable fractions is shredded and subjected to a preliminary cleaning, see Heitkaemper [0005] – (construed as decontaminating the recovered plastic waste; and/or cutting the recovered plastic waste); and the plastic material is then dried and can, for example, be used directly for its new purpose in this processed form, see Heitkaemper [0005] – (construed as outputting processed plastic waste to a plastic product manufacturing stage).
Claims 4-7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 1 and/or 3 above, and further in view of Carter et al. (US 2022/0178102 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, 13, as previously discussed, modified Heitkaemper discloses feeding of the unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming processes in the various process steps, see at least [0015], [0030] – [0031] – (construed as a plastic product manufacturing stage comprising: combusting the biomass waste by the combustion system to generate the residual heat and heated exhaust); this further includes processing the desired plastic waste into granules by extrusion, see at least [0005]. It being understood to one of ordinary skill that the extrusion process includes melting material which is extruded through a die. Thus, the recitation “ using the residual heat and heated exhaust to melt the recovered plastic waste to generate melted plastic” is met.
Modified Heitkaemper does not explicitly disclose providing the melted plastic to a mold to shape and form a new plastic product, the product being a construction product.
Carter discloses a method making a recycled plastic product. The method to include extruding the recovered melted plastic into a mold, see at least claim 9, FIGS 6-7, [0075], [0086] – (construed as providing the melted plastic to a mold to shape and form a new plastic product; and providing the melted plastic to a mold to shape and form a new plastic product). The product being for example plastic blocks suitable for forming a retaining wall, barriers and the like in a construction site, see at least FIG. 6, [0064], [0092] – (construed as the new plastic products comprise construction products, including blocks). This being beneficial for contributing to easier and more economical recycling of plastics, see at least [0011]. As to the shape of the blocks: It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of male locking members on a first surface, and female locking members on an opposing surface, the male locking members configured to engage the female locking members to allow blocks to be stacked for the purpose of fixing the stacked blocks together.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Heitkaemper’s method to include the use of a mold in forming the recycled plastic product as taught by Carter to form a final product in an easier manner.
Regarding claims 6-7, as previously discussed, modified Heitkaemper discloses combusting the biomass waste by the combustion system to generate the residual heat and heated exhaust; providing the recovered plastic waste to a mold configured to melt plastic to shape and form a new plastic product, see at least the discussion of claims, 4-5. And where it is cost-effective is the feeding of the unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming processes in the various process steps. Further increases in efficiency are achieved by adding to the incineration plant, in addition to the unusable components, the waste residues generated in the individual process steps that are not to be further processed, see [0015] - [0016] – (construed as using the residual heat and heated exhaust by the mold in forming the new plastic product).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 1 and/or 3 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112590143 A).
Regarding claims 8-9, as previously discussed, modified Heitkaemper discloses combusting the biomass waste by the combustion system to generate the residual heat and heated exhaust, see at least the discussion of claim 1; and where the recycled plastic material is further directly processed, see at least [0029]. And where it is cost-effective is the feeding of the unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming processes in the various process steps. Further increases in efficiency are achieved by adding to the incineration plant, in addition to the unusable components, the waste residues generated in the individual process steps that are not to be further processed, see [0015] - [0016] – (construed as using the residual heat and heated exhaust by the system processes in forming the new plastic product). However, it does not explicitly disclose providing the processed plastic waste to a press configured to fuse plastic to shape and form a new plastic product; and using the residual heat and heated exhaust by the press in forming the new plastic product.
Zhang discloses a molding production system and method based on recycled plastic. The method to include extruding the melted plastic into a press-mold 3 to thereby form the recycled plastic into a product, see at least page 14 paragraph 4, figure 1. This being beneficial for increasing the density/strength of the final product, as well as having lower power requirement costs, see page 16 paragraph 4.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Heitkaemper’s method of recycling/reclaiming system power for further processing use to further include providing the processed plastic waste to a press configured to fuse plastic to shape and form a new plastic product as taught by Zhang to form a plastic recycling method with the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gitschel (US 2017/0253891 A1).
Regarding claim 10, as previously discussed, modified Heitkaemper discloses it is cost-effective to feed the unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming processes in the various process steps. And where further increases in efficiency are achieved by adding to the incineration plant, in addition to the unusable components, the waste residues generated in the individual process steps that are not to be further processed, see [0015] - [0016]. And where the processing steps include the use of electrical energy to drive the corresponding machines and devices, see [0031] – (construed as using the residual heat and heated exhaust from the combustion system to an electricity generating system). However, it does not explicitly disclose use of electric turbines.
Gitschel discloses systems and methods for processing mixed solid waste to include plastic streams. The method to further include processing some waste streams to produce heat to drive a turbine to produce electricity, see at least [0089], [0139], [0142]. Gitschel discloses production of onsite power is beneficial as its more efficient and reduces carbon emissions, see [0089], [0091].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Heitkaemper’s method to include the use of an electricity generating system comprising electric turbines; generating electricity by the electric turbines; and supplying the electricity to the plastic product manufacturing stage; and outputting turbine exhaust and turbine heat to the plastic product manufacturing stage for use therein as taught by Gitschel to provide the method with a means to provide more efficient power while reducing the carbon emissions of the production process.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gitschel (US 2017/0253891 A1), in view of Graf von Deym et al. (US 6,845,869 B1).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Heitkaemper does not explicitly disclose the use of methane.
Gitschel discloses systems and methods for processing mixed solid waste to include plastic streams. The method to further include processing some waste streams to produce heat to drive a turbine to produce electricity, see at least [0089], [0139], [0142]. And include a power generation system which uses the waste material to produce biogas for combusting methane, see [0011], [0094], [0111]. Gitschel discloses production of onsite power is beneficial as its more efficient and reduces carbon emissions, see [0089], [0091].
Graf von Deym discloses sorting and separating method and system for recycling plastics. The method to include using a biogas system where methane gas generated by in the bio gas generator from organic material removed in the plant from the starting mixture of material and/or from the mixture of plastics obtained from it. The methane gas generated is combusted in the at least one gas in turbine. The combustion gas thus arising is used to generate processing energy for the plant, see Col 4 lines 56-65.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Heitkaemper’s method to recover methane from the waste repository; providing the methane to a second combustion system configured to burn methane to generate additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust; and providing the methane to an electricity generating system configured to burn methane to power turbines to generate electricity, additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust and outputting the additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust to the plastic product manufacturing stage for use therein, as taught and/or reasonably suggested by Gitschel and Graf von Deym to provide the method with a means for generating onsite power to efficiently drive its processes.
Claims 16-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Carter et al. (US 2022/0178102 A1).
Regarding claims 16-17, as previously discussed, modified Heitkaemper discloses feeding of the unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming processes in the various process steps, see at least [0015], [0030] – [0031] – (construed as the plastic product manufacturing system comprises: the combustion system configured to com bust the biomass waste and to generate the residual heat and heated exhaust); this further includes processing the desired plastic waste into granules by extrusion, see at least [0005]. It being understood to one of ordinary skill that the extrusion process includes melting material which is extruded through a die. Thus, the recitation “a plastic melting device configured to use the residual heat and heated exhaust to melt the processed plastic waste to generate melted plastic” is met.
Heitkaemper does not explicitly disclose providing the melted plastic to a mold to shape and form a new plastic product, the product being a construction product.
Carter discloses a method making a recycled plastic product. The method to include extruding the recovered melted plastic into a mold, see at least claim 9, FIGS 6-7, [0075], [0086] – (construed as a mold configured to shape and form the melted plastic into a new plastic product; and a mold configured to melt the processed plastic waste to shape and form a new plastic product using the residual heat and heated exhaust in forming the new plastic product). This being beneficial for contributing to easier and more economical recycling of plastics, see at least [0011].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heitkaemper’s method to include the use of a mold in forming the recycled plastic product as taught by Carter to form a final product in an easier manner.
Claim 18 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112590143 A).
Regarding claim 18, as previously discussed, Heitkaemper discloses combusting the biomass waste by the combustion system to generate the residual heat and heated exhaust, see at least the discussion of claim 1; and where the recycled plastic material is further directly processed, see at least [0029]. And where it is cost-effective is the feeding of the unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming processes in the various process steps. Further increases in efficiency are achieved by adding to the incineration plant, in addition to the unusable components, the waste residues generated in the individual process steps that are not to be further processed, see [0015] - [0016] – (construed as using the residual heat and heated exhaust by the system processes in forming the new plastic product). However, it does not explicitly disclose providing the processed plastic waste to a press configured to fuse plastic to shape and form a new plastic product.
Zhang discloses a molding production system and method based on recycled plastic. The method to include extruding the melted plastic into a press-mold 3 to thereby form the recycled plastic into a product, see at least page 14 paragraph 4, figure 1. This being beneficial for increasing the density/strength of the final product, as well as having lower power requirement costs, see page 16 paragraph 4.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heitkaemper’s method of recycling/reclaiming system power for further processing use to further include providing the processed plastic waste to a press configured to fuse the processed plastic waste to shape and form the new plastic product as taught by Zhang to form a plastic recycling method with the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Gitschel (US 2017/0253891 A1).
Regarding claim 19, as previously discussed, Heitkaemper discloses it is cost-effective to feed the unusable components into an incineration plant, where they are burned, and the energy gained in the process is made available to the energy-consuming processes in the various process steps. And where further increases in efficiency are achieved by adding to the incineration plant, in addition to the unusable components, the waste residues generated in the individual process steps that are not to be further processed, see [0015] - [0016]. And where the processing steps include the use of electrical energy to drive the corresponding machines and devices, see [0031] – (construed as receive at least a portion of the residual heat and heated exhaust from the combustion system to an electricity generating system). However, it does not explicitly disclose use of electric turbines.
Gitschel discloses systems and methods for processing mixed solid waste to include plastic streams. The method to further include processing some waste streams to produce heat to drive a turbine to produce electricity, see at least [0089], [0139], [0142]. Gitschel discloses production of onsite power is beneficial as its more efficient and reduces carbon emissions, see [0089], [0091].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heitkaemper’s method to include the use of an electricity generating system comprising electric turbines configured to: receive at least a portion of the residual heat and heated exhaust from the combustion system; generate electricity by the electric turbines using the residual heat and heated exhaust from the combustion system; supply the electricity to the plastic product manufacturing system; and output turbine exhaust and turbine heat to the plastic product manufacturing system for use therein. as taught by Gitschel to provide the method with a means to provide more efficient power while reducing the carbon emissions of the production process.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkaemper (DE 3535633 A1 – of record), in view of Dong (CN 113843918 A), as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Gitschel (US 2017/0253891 A1), in view of Graf von Deym et al. (US 6,845,869 B1).
Regarding claims 20-21, Heitkaemper does not explicitly disclose the use of methane.
Gitschel discloses systems and methods for processing mixed solid waste to include plastic streams. The method to further include processing some waste streams to produce heat to drive a turbine to produce electricity, see at least [0089], [0139], [0142]. And include a power generation system which uses the waste material to produce biogas for combusting methane, see [0011], [0094], [0111]. Gitschel discloses production of onsite power is beneficial as its more efficient and reduces carbon emissions, see [0089], [0091].
Graf von Deym discloses sorting and separating method and system for recycling plastics. The method to include using a biogas system where methane gas generated by in the bio gas generator from organic material removed in the plant from the starting mixture of material and/or from the mixture of plastics obtained from it. The methane gas generated is combusted in the at least one gas in turbine. The combustion gas thus arising is used to generate processing energy for the plant, see Col 4 lines 56-65.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heitkaemper’s method to have a second combustion system configured to burn methane recovered from the waste repository to generate additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust, and to output the additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust to the plastic product manufacturing system for use therein; and an electricity generating system comprising electric turbines; and a second combustion system configured to burn methane recovered from the waste repository to generate additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust, wherein the electricity generating system is configured to receive at least a portion of the additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust from the second combustion system, generate electricity by the electric turbines using the additional residual heat and additional heated exhaust from the combustion system; supply the electricity to the plastic product manufacturing system; and output turbine exhaust and turbine heat to the plastic product manufacturing system for use therein, as taught and/or reasonably suggested by Gitschel and Graf von Deym to provide the method with a means for generating onsite power to efficiently drive its processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights